c2c-oerpscenario team mailing list archive

["Olivier Dony \(OpenERP\)" <670451@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 31/03/11 18:11, Michael Schwessinger wrote:
> OK. In this case we do NOT need any OPW and will cancel our latest
> one.... Also we will stop any introduction of OpenERP in our
> companies because it is not usable. Why OPW, if all promised features
> are not working and bug reports are declared as "wishlist" and "no
> bug"....

Sorry Michael, I'm just trying to be honest and give everyone realistic
expectations about what OpenERP does and what it does not do.

I think it's much better than confirming more and more bugs about
"apparent issues" with production lots/batch numbers, ignoring the
possibly big consequences this has behind the scene.


On 31/03/11 18:49, Steffi Frank (Bremskerl, DE) wrote:
> after reading your comment I hope there is a chance to agree on a
> solution.

We had a very long meeting in R&D yesterday about these issues, and we
are going to see what can be done about it. I realize this looks like a
major shortcoming in OpenERP when you are in automotive industry, but I
hope I showed what was the philosophy in the OpenERP implementation, so
you can actually make the correct assumptions based on that.


> But we've got one big issue: for one of our companies we set 1st of
> April as date for going live. Cause of all the trouble with production
> lots we moved that already to 1st of May.....

I understand and I'm sorry you were not warned before about this. The
number of apparent bugs you encountered with production lots should have
acted as a warning sign that something bigger was behind it :-(


> We definitely can't go live without a solution for our reported bugs
> concerning production lots (automobil industry is bounded for full
> traceability too). So 'whishlist' and 'next version' won't help at
> all... But the idea of a new module 'track internal moves' sounds good
> (as far as I know c2c started working on it already?) - subject to one
> condition: for testing we need it at least in 2 weeks.

We'll let you know what we'll do asap.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of C2C
OERPScenario, which is subscribed to the OpenERP Project Group.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/670451

Title:
  [trunk] No support for forcing full traceability of production lot #
  in internal stock moves

Status in OpenERP Modules (addons):
  Confirmed
Status in OpenERP Addons 5.0 series:
  Won't Fix
Status in OpenERP Addons trunk series:
  Confirmed

Bug description:
  Product traceability works only in the simplest cases: When You buy product and sell them from the same location.
  But if internal moves or manufacturing operations are involved then traceability can't be guaranteed or even impossible.

  The one single reason for this is that there is no way to set "Tracking moves between physical locations" on products. You can track only incoming, outgoing and manufacturing LOTs: The ones from and to virtual locations but not between physical locations.
  Doing internal moves the system don't force the usage of LOTs even if all tracking options is checked for a product.

  The worst case is when You use mrp module for managing Manufacturing operations:
  Two sets of stock.move object is generated when You click on "Confirm Production" in a Manufacturing Order. One set is for Consuming Products on which You are forced to set LOTs (when "tracking manufacturing LOTs"  option is checked on the product). The other set of stock.move object (a picking list) is done behind the scenes. Since these (hidden) moves are internal moves and done automatically LOT assignment is not forced.

  The effect is that the system moves the raw materials from Stock to
  the Work Center Location without LOT. Then when the user tries to set
  LOTs on the products to consume (from the Work Center Location to the
  virtual Production location) a warning message is shown: "Bad LOT
  assignation. You are moving 5 products but only 0 available in this
  lot." The available quantity turns to negative and the shortage is
  increasing by every Manufacturing Order.

  The work around is to set the LOTs on both the products to consume and
  the internal picking list. But it's not forced by the system (so no
  guarantied) and is even a lot of unnecessary work. Imagine to do it on
  20 ingredients: 2x20=40 LOT assignment. You have to set the same LOT
  on every two related moves one by one. Double work for nothing to
  gain. But certainly it's not intuitive.

  Anyway I don't understand why are there 3 options for tracking LOTs?
  And it's even don't cover all the possibilities. So either there
  should be a 4th option to track internal moves or there should be only
  one to track all moves for a LOT (as in some other ERP systems)

  As I know LOT tracking is for traceability. So what is the purpose of
  the possibility of partial LOT tracking? (only incoming or only
  outgoing) What useful information can You get from them? For product
  traceability You need to track all LOT moves.

  While OpenERP is a promising product it's not yet usable in Food,
  chemical and pharma manufacturing industry where LOT management and
  full traceability is vital.

  In essence two development would be needed:
  1. Ability to track internal moves (Preferably with one single option on products for all LOT tracking)
  2. In Manufacturing orders to automatically copy the LOT attribute from the products to be consumed to the internal picking list. (So that the user should not have to repeat the LOT assignment and tracking would be guarantied)